While I gave up on prince charming long ago, I buy my lottery ticket religiously and am not above casting a luck spell--especially right before they pull those lottery numbers out of their hat.
I hate that little girls are taught that they need Prince charming, or his equivalent to save them from drudgery (cinderella) eternal sleep (sleeping beauty) dragons, distress, poverty, powerlessness, victimization---you know--everything bad that can go wrong. I do understand it, though.
While we watch, vicariously through the paparazzi, beautiful or rich or famous or powerful women or men as they live big, beautiful, rich, adventurous, risky, romantic lives, we look around our own little neighborhoods at the lives our children see us living and are underwhelmed.
My big adventure this week was taxes. I still owe money I don't have; not a lot and not forever, but the 15th came and went and I couldn't pay it all. Where is my fairy god mother when I need her.
Why do so many of us find ourselves in situations that could use a little help. Not "standing on an off ramp with a sign" help, but not "life is going fine and I have everything I could ever wish for" either. I do understand gratitude and thankfulness and staying positive and working hard and patience and hanging in there. I am a survivor and there has never been any doubt about that. But survivor is another word for a person that has suffered some really crappy breaks.
This is not about me whining. It is about people that spend a lifetime with no hope more realistic than winning the lottery. It is about trying to not become hopeless when you can't even see any possible way to pull yourself out of the latest problem.
Who goes looking for Prince charming? Young girls, even if they are pretty darn old at the time, girls that see themselves as homily, uncharming, unattractive, and also powerless and incapable of building a life without someone to help them find their own strength and beauty and value.
Who plays the lottery? People that have been struggling and struggling and realize they are treading water. They can't ever change jobs and do better, they can't start on their bucket list, they have as much chance of helping their loved ones as they have of winning the lottery. So they play--buying a little hope every time they buy a ticket.
And luck spells?
I've met lucky people. At my work, the same people win the raffles and draws all the time. I've known people that doubled their money every time they went to the casino and bingo players that always won at least one game. I've known people that find money on the ground routinely, not pennies. I've met people that ran into their prince charming in elementary school, married them, got rich, and lived happily ever after.
Luck, good fortune, call it whatever you want. Some people have more of it than other's. I haven't noticed positive thinking being the same thing. I can't really tell the difference between the effects of positive thinking and the effects of being delusional. I realize that being so negative you give up, lose hope, throw in the towel can guarantee failure. You can't win if you don't play. You will never succeed if you don't try.
So I skip Prince Charming, He is a girl's hope, really. And I buy my lottery ticket, dream of how to make the most of the winnings, and light a candle to Fortuna.
Good luck to all of us survivors..
Thursday, April 16, 2015
My fair Tax Plan
I did my taxes. And as has been true after every single time I have been told that the taxes are lower, my personal rate went up. Apparently, the rate is down and the deductibles are up if you are making a lot of money, like the kind of money where you can donate large amounts to the candidate of your choice.
In my tax plan, it is going to a flat rate--not flat like "everyone owes $10,000 dollars, which is less than I pay but more than a lot of people can pay, but a flat rate that is a percent and that does not have a million (i chose that number for its subliminal effect) deductions available for giving away massive amounts of money and making huge bad investments on purpose.
Its pretty simple, really. And gives 10% to federal and 10% to states. Because even God only asked for 10%. It starts with a simple number, that is figured yearly. A family of 1 person or 2 adults (per person because 2 can't really live as cheap as one unless only one of them get to buy anything) doesn't pay anything if they make less than the highest state's (Alaska) Federal Poverty level. Children cost poor people about 8,000 per year each, so each child is a 8,000 deduction, and that number is also refigured each year to match the changes that the value of the dollar and the economy create.
I could have chosen the middle class estimate which was about 16,000 per year or the rich person estimate which was about 32,000, but which ever is chosen, it is used no matter your income not stepped up for middle and high--everyone wants to do more for their kids. So a person making the US median income, that is 50% above and 50% below, if single and no children would pay 43,585-19920 = 23665 x0.10%=$2366 to federal and the same to their state.
A person that made $20,000 would only pay 8$. to federal and 8 to state.
If that same median income person was a couple with 3 children under 18, that would be $43585-$19920-$19920=$3545-(3 x $8083) = -$21704. And there you have your earned income credit. It would mean that no one didn't have what was needed to at least care for their family at the basic level..
But what would that do to a person at the bottom edge of the top 2% of income earners? I'll use $225,000 since it is hard to find anything more recent than 2013.
A married CEO with a stay-at-home wife has an income of $225,000 -$19920-$19920 = $205,080 x 0.10%= $20,508 to federal and $20,508 to state. That same person with a stay at home wife and 2 children would owe $16,916 to both.
All income, whether from investments or from wages or company profits or bonuses would go toward the same number--"income".
What would that do to the tax base? Why make the state and federal the same? Because the state is responsible for just as much as the federal. Would we collect as much that way? I don't know, but those people that are in the top 1% would be paying the same share and those at the bottom would not be battling poverty and children whose future is aimed toward prison and homelessness and hopelessness.
In 2011, Warren Buffet (I actually like this man, but his income was easy to find) made $62,855,038. If he paid taxes with my plan, he would owe $62,855,038 - $19,920 = $62835118 x0.10%= $6,283,511 to federal and the same to his state. He actually paid a little more than this in federal taxes, but I have no idea what his income would have been if it hadn't been adjusted to make capital gains, etc not as much. I also don't think he paid nearly this much for state income tax. I suppose if a person that has income in multiple states, it would be divided out in the same manner it was earned--50% from Kentucky then 50% back to Kentucky, 10% from California, then 10% back to California.
About 42% of the federal revenue is from individual Income tax. The 2013 Federal revenue was about 2.8 Trillion dollars so $1,176,000,000 came from personal income tax. There are about 115,227,000 households in the US now. About 27 percent of those household have only one person in them. About 46% of households have at least one child. That means over 25% of households have at least 2 adults and no children. The US population has reached 318,892,103 with 74,181,467 under the age of 18. The percent of households living in poverty ranges from 7.6% to 21.6% depending on the state.
But look at what else is changed by a fairer tax law.
If I can figure this on a blog, I'm pretty sure the IRS can downsize. Also, how many variations of TURBOTAX--a tragically glitchy and expensive program that is good for 1 year and that charges extra for just about everything. How about the cost of all those tax forms that still exist and the cost of tax accountants that have no other job than trying to find more ways to not pay taxes. I searched for information about the cost of the IRS and the profits from tax companies, but found nothing.
I do know that a ton of companies rise up in January, start hiring people to stand around in weird costumes to wave people into the "get your taxes done" places. There is a crapload of bad debt every year that comes from sales in which the first high rate payment is an expected tax return. People that owe 250$ on taxes pay 250$ to get their taxes done. People that expect to get $900 back go to the car lot of the renta center and have them done and end up with something that is at least $900 dollars over-priced. For 2 minutes after the beginning of tax season, people that got something back are buying things they usually couldn't afford. The week of April 15th, people that still owe a bit are trying to figure out where to get the money to pay that in. The current system is soooo flawed.
Is it possible that 10% wouldn't provide as much revenue? Maybe. Do we need to spend more on defense than all the other countries combined? We should be the safest, most peaceful country in the world for all the money we spend on defense, yet we fall between Argentina and Jordan, with 91 countries that have more violent deaths than we do and 100 countries with less violent death.
Corporate taxes are less than 10% of the federal revenue. The next biggest source of revenue for the federal government are those two items we pay out from our paychecks--social security and medicare--a whopping 34% of revenue. It is no wonder all those lawmakers keep wanting to grab that money for their own use. But it is designated. It is we, the people's annuity retirement plan. We pay it in, we get it back--at least if we live long enough. Those lawmakers have dipped into it before, in fact, that revenue got popped into the general revenue where it was used for the annual budget. It reminds me of the gambler parents that use their childrens savings to go to the casino.
We are a big country, third largest by population, but less than half the size of the bigger two--China (#1) and India (#2). We are more than twice the population of Russia, but Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan and Nigeria and Bangladesh have populations larger than Russia. We have 3 times the population of Mexico and 5 times the Population of the UK--of course the UK used to be much bigger, it is now just North Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. At one time, the British Empire included much more, including parts of Canada, Africa, the Caribbean, India, Australia and our own first 13 colonies. When I was a kid, China (called "red china", but not because they were republican, it was our own bit of ignorance and fearmongering. One of these days I'll look at what made a country with as old and proud of history as China revolt against their power structure, (That would take a while, because we never really touched that in school) was known to be huge and threatening. It and Russia were considered to be the two countries that could threaten the USA defense. The cold war was very much alive. India, almost as large, was almost unspoken of. They were independent of England by 1947, but I think most of us saw them as small, poor, and powerless due to their previously being just a part of the British Empire. Pretty silly on our part.
Glad that China and India aren't spending as much per person on defense as we are in the USA.
So what should taxes be used for?
For the good of the people both present and future. What does that look like?
1. The continued care of the land that sustains us.
2. Infrastructure to keep everything moving.
3. The health of the people.
4. The education of the people.
5. The safety and defense of the people.
6. The improvement of the standard of living of everyone.
That is my plan.
Share it with those congressmen that still think that just because big business gives them money for greasing their wheels, the rest of us feel like that about them and their tax breaks. Every Corporation--10% to federal and 10% proportioned out between the states they are in according to how much money that state brings them. They use the roads, they use the education and healthcare for their employees. If they are people too, they can pull their weight. (a small business that isn't making poverty level after expenses gets the same deal as a person not making enough, but a business that needs an earned income credit needs to just go get a job like the rest of us.
In my tax plan, it is going to a flat rate--not flat like "everyone owes $10,000 dollars, which is less than I pay but more than a lot of people can pay, but a flat rate that is a percent and that does not have a million (i chose that number for its subliminal effect) deductions available for giving away massive amounts of money and making huge bad investments on purpose.
Its pretty simple, really. And gives 10% to federal and 10% to states. Because even God only asked for 10%. It starts with a simple number, that is figured yearly. A family of 1 person or 2 adults (per person because 2 can't really live as cheap as one unless only one of them get to buy anything) doesn't pay anything if they make less than the highest state's (Alaska) Federal Poverty level. Children cost poor people about 8,000 per year each, so each child is a 8,000 deduction, and that number is also refigured each year to match the changes that the value of the dollar and the economy create.
I could have chosen the middle class estimate which was about 16,000 per year or the rich person estimate which was about 32,000, but which ever is chosen, it is used no matter your income not stepped up for middle and high--everyone wants to do more for their kids. So a person making the US median income, that is 50% above and 50% below, if single and no children would pay 43,585-19920 = 23665 x0.10%=$2366 to federal and the same to their state.
A person that made $20,000 would only pay 8$. to federal and 8 to state.
If that same median income person was a couple with 3 children under 18, that would be $43585-$19920-$19920=$3545-(3 x $8083) = -$21704. And there you have your earned income credit. It would mean that no one didn't have what was needed to at least care for their family at the basic level..
But what would that do to a person at the bottom edge of the top 2% of income earners? I'll use $225,000 since it is hard to find anything more recent than 2013.
A married CEO with a stay-at-home wife has an income of $225,000 -$19920-$19920 = $205,080 x 0.10%= $20,508 to federal and $20,508 to state. That same person with a stay at home wife and 2 children would owe $16,916 to both.
All income, whether from investments or from wages or company profits or bonuses would go toward the same number--"income".
What would that do to the tax base? Why make the state and federal the same? Because the state is responsible for just as much as the federal. Would we collect as much that way? I don't know, but those people that are in the top 1% would be paying the same share and those at the bottom would not be battling poverty and children whose future is aimed toward prison and homelessness and hopelessness.
In 2011, Warren Buffet (I actually like this man, but his income was easy to find) made $62,855,038. If he paid taxes with my plan, he would owe $62,855,038 - $19,920 = $62835118 x0.10%= $6,283,511 to federal and the same to his state. He actually paid a little more than this in federal taxes, but I have no idea what his income would have been if it hadn't been adjusted to make capital gains, etc not as much. I also don't think he paid nearly this much for state income tax. I suppose if a person that has income in multiple states, it would be divided out in the same manner it was earned--50% from Kentucky then 50% back to Kentucky, 10% from California, then 10% back to California.
About 42% of the federal revenue is from individual Income tax. The 2013 Federal revenue was about 2.8 Trillion dollars so $1,176,000,000 came from personal income tax. There are about 115,227,000 households in the US now. About 27 percent of those household have only one person in them. About 46% of households have at least one child. That means over 25% of households have at least 2 adults and no children. The US population has reached 318,892,103 with 74,181,467 under the age of 18. The percent of households living in poverty ranges from 7.6% to 21.6% depending on the state.
But look at what else is changed by a fairer tax law.
If I can figure this on a blog, I'm pretty sure the IRS can downsize. Also, how many variations of TURBOTAX--a tragically glitchy and expensive program that is good for 1 year and that charges extra for just about everything. How about the cost of all those tax forms that still exist and the cost of tax accountants that have no other job than trying to find more ways to not pay taxes. I searched for information about the cost of the IRS and the profits from tax companies, but found nothing.
I do know that a ton of companies rise up in January, start hiring people to stand around in weird costumes to wave people into the "get your taxes done" places. There is a crapload of bad debt every year that comes from sales in which the first high rate payment is an expected tax return. People that owe 250$ on taxes pay 250$ to get their taxes done. People that expect to get $900 back go to the car lot of the renta center and have them done and end up with something that is at least $900 dollars over-priced. For 2 minutes after the beginning of tax season, people that got something back are buying things they usually couldn't afford. The week of April 15th, people that still owe a bit are trying to figure out where to get the money to pay that in. The current system is soooo flawed.
Is it possible that 10% wouldn't provide as much revenue? Maybe. Do we need to spend more on defense than all the other countries combined? We should be the safest, most peaceful country in the world for all the money we spend on defense, yet we fall between Argentina and Jordan, with 91 countries that have more violent deaths than we do and 100 countries with less violent death.
Corporate taxes are less than 10% of the federal revenue. The next biggest source of revenue for the federal government are those two items we pay out from our paychecks--social security and medicare--a whopping 34% of revenue. It is no wonder all those lawmakers keep wanting to grab that money for their own use. But it is designated. It is we, the people's annuity retirement plan. We pay it in, we get it back--at least if we live long enough. Those lawmakers have dipped into it before, in fact, that revenue got popped into the general revenue where it was used for the annual budget. It reminds me of the gambler parents that use their childrens savings to go to the casino.
We are a big country, third largest by population, but less than half the size of the bigger two--China (#1) and India (#2). We are more than twice the population of Russia, but Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan and Nigeria and Bangladesh have populations larger than Russia. We have 3 times the population of Mexico and 5 times the Population of the UK--of course the UK used to be much bigger, it is now just North Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. At one time, the British Empire included much more, including parts of Canada, Africa, the Caribbean, India, Australia and our own first 13 colonies. When I was a kid, China (called "red china", but not because they were republican, it was our own bit of ignorance and fearmongering. One of these days I'll look at what made a country with as old and proud of history as China revolt against their power structure, (That would take a while, because we never really touched that in school) was known to be huge and threatening. It and Russia were considered to be the two countries that could threaten the USA defense. The cold war was very much alive. India, almost as large, was almost unspoken of. They were independent of England by 1947, but I think most of us saw them as small, poor, and powerless due to their previously being just a part of the British Empire. Pretty silly on our part.
Glad that China and India aren't spending as much per person on defense as we are in the USA.
So what should taxes be used for?
For the good of the people both present and future. What does that look like?
1. The continued care of the land that sustains us.
2. Infrastructure to keep everything moving.
3. The health of the people.
4. The education of the people.
5. The safety and defense of the people.
6. The improvement of the standard of living of everyone.
That is my plan.
Share it with those congressmen that still think that just because big business gives them money for greasing their wheels, the rest of us feel like that about them and their tax breaks. Every Corporation--10% to federal and 10% proportioned out between the states they are in according to how much money that state brings them. They use the roads, they use the education and healthcare for their employees. If they are people too, they can pull their weight. (a small business that isn't making poverty level after expenses gets the same deal as a person not making enough, but a business that needs an earned income credit needs to just go get a job like the rest of us.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
the history of history
I have always loved history--the subject history, the study of and the stories of and the paraphernalia that we keep to remind us of the stories. These days, history is being discussed because of the inability to pull the perspective back from the people in power to a more global and all-seeing-eye perspective. That is a hard thing to do. I have read some books where authors did a fair job and seen a few movies where directors did a not as good as they had hoped job. Perspective is deceptively difficult to get past.
When I was a child, 7ish, I already liked history. I didn't officially take it in school, but holidays, church, common conversation was steeped in the history of both the dominant culture and our specific families. It was also enmeshed with the times. My favorite time was the prehistoric time, with cave boys on mammoths and dinosaurs moving rocks to build houses and fossils in LIFE books that looked a little like birds, a little like monsters and human bones that looked like monkeys or humans or monsters. Those images became a part of my life view. I could not imagine a world with evolution, without fossil remains, without cave men and cave paintings. I thought we all shared those images. I thought they were universal.
Forty years later, I discovered that there were people--not just in far and strange lands, but my age in my town than thought that all those images were frauds: Science fiction created by the devil to draw us down a false path. Their children questioned the moon walk--the first one, although they were no more fond of Micheal Jackson's version years later. They didn't have my LIFE books or my Childcraft books when they were 7. They did not share my perception of history.
History, as taught in public school in the United States was always very patriotic. It always started with Columbus discovering the NEW WORLD. Then we were a continent of people that came here to escape religious persecution and find freedom. It was taught as if the 284 years between discovery and the beginning of the United States of America becoming a nation was a short little moment. The only thing of import being that central America was taken by those greedy Spaniards for the gold, and the first thanksgiving with Indians and Pilgrams sharing a meal. Then it was time for the revolution and the signing of the declaration of Independence.
Two hundred and eighty four years. That is 14 generations (with the standard 20 years per), a single chapter in my high school history book. From first grade coloring of turkeys and pilgrams to second grade"s singing program of patriotic songs like "this land is your land" (no one explained who wrote that or that he was from my state or that he was controversial at the time) to "america the beautiful", to "the star spangled banner" and others, so many others. Then we started history as such, and it always started with Columbus, then conquering of the Aztecs (or maybe I remember that because our neighbors vacationed in Mexico City and brought back slides of the Aztec artifacts and stories of people being sacrificed and the conquistadors vanquishing them.) and then the Mayflower, and the revolution and the civil war and we never actually made it past the civil war. I took the second half of US history in college because I had never heard anything about it except from old relatives. We also had Oklahoma history and that started with the conquistadors traveling through our state and then skipped to the trail of tears and the Land rush. Then Statehood and stealing the capital from Guthrie and, well it was taught by a coach, and I did learn a little about football.
College history was better, at least once it was classes chosen and not classes required. History professors do like history. Even the required class required me to look a little more deeply--or perhaps that was also due to the time, we had just pulled out of the 60's and demonstrations and civil unrest. Such things can cause thoughtful people to question what they have always been told. My socialogy teacher was a self-proclaimed socialist. If he had been less irascible and annoying it might have actually made me examine my supreme hatred of that system. We were still in the Cold War and socialism was just another name for communism. That was about as bad as a government could be.
Perspective.
Things I never heard about in my public education in the U.S.A.
What do we really know. What has history taught us.
We know that whoever is in power controls history. We know that teaching people a story that makes those in power out to be all good and making those that were destroyed, overthrown, misused all bad or in some way inferior makes us feel we are on the side of winners. We identify with the powerful. We are loyal. We are patriotic.
I have talked to people that live in this country and that have their own family history which does not jibe with the current story of history. People that remember their grandmother telling them of punishment for speaking the language of her family while living at an Indian school. People that remember when Korea was one country, or that are here as Zorastrians and are afraid of the christians in their neighborhood because religious freedom only goes so far. People that have heard stories of slavery and are still seeing the effects of being treated as if they are not part of this country. People that came here recently from another country and found that we are not really that free, that equal--that the land of opportunity is more bumper sticker than truth.
Public schools were created at the beginning of the industrial age to help educate and indoctrinate a rural and uneducated group of people that had been living on farms and ranches and otherwise "off the land" so that they would make good workers in their factories. The factories needed people with the ability read and do calculations, to follow directions and submit to authority. Public schools were made, not for the good of the common man, but for the good of the rich and their newest money making enterprises. The children of the moneyed had always had access to education. They didn't learn to sing patriotic songs and color turkeys. They recieved a "classic education" which we would now equate to an expensive prep school.
History, if it is to keep us from repeating it biggest mistakes, must be a truer history. It must include the history of those places we, in the nation, have ignored. It must tell the story of the oppressed as well as the glory stories of the oppressors. We must all seek out a more complete, more global, story if we are to avoid the mistakes that have already been made repeatedly.
When I was a child, 7ish, I already liked history. I didn't officially take it in school, but holidays, church, common conversation was steeped in the history of both the dominant culture and our specific families. It was also enmeshed with the times. My favorite time was the prehistoric time, with cave boys on mammoths and dinosaurs moving rocks to build houses and fossils in LIFE books that looked a little like birds, a little like monsters and human bones that looked like monkeys or humans or monsters. Those images became a part of my life view. I could not imagine a world with evolution, without fossil remains, without cave men and cave paintings. I thought we all shared those images. I thought they were universal.
Forty years later, I discovered that there were people--not just in far and strange lands, but my age in my town than thought that all those images were frauds: Science fiction created by the devil to draw us down a false path. Their children questioned the moon walk--the first one, although they were no more fond of Micheal Jackson's version years later. They didn't have my LIFE books or my Childcraft books when they were 7. They did not share my perception of history.
History, as taught in public school in the United States was always very patriotic. It always started with Columbus discovering the NEW WORLD. Then we were a continent of people that came here to escape religious persecution and find freedom. It was taught as if the 284 years between discovery and the beginning of the United States of America becoming a nation was a short little moment. The only thing of import being that central America was taken by those greedy Spaniards for the gold, and the first thanksgiving with Indians and Pilgrams sharing a meal. Then it was time for the revolution and the signing of the declaration of Independence.
Two hundred and eighty four years. That is 14 generations (with the standard 20 years per), a single chapter in my high school history book. From first grade coloring of turkeys and pilgrams to second grade"s singing program of patriotic songs like "this land is your land" (no one explained who wrote that or that he was from my state or that he was controversial at the time) to "america the beautiful", to "the star spangled banner" and others, so many others. Then we started history as such, and it always started with Columbus, then conquering of the Aztecs (or maybe I remember that because our neighbors vacationed in Mexico City and brought back slides of the Aztec artifacts and stories of people being sacrificed and the conquistadors vanquishing them.) and then the Mayflower, and the revolution and the civil war and we never actually made it past the civil war. I took the second half of US history in college because I had never heard anything about it except from old relatives. We also had Oklahoma history and that started with the conquistadors traveling through our state and then skipped to the trail of tears and the Land rush. Then Statehood and stealing the capital from Guthrie and, well it was taught by a coach, and I did learn a little about football.
College history was better, at least once it was classes chosen and not classes required. History professors do like history. Even the required class required me to look a little more deeply--or perhaps that was also due to the time, we had just pulled out of the 60's and demonstrations and civil unrest. Such things can cause thoughtful people to question what they have always been told. My socialogy teacher was a self-proclaimed socialist. If he had been less irascible and annoying it might have actually made me examine my supreme hatred of that system. We were still in the Cold War and socialism was just another name for communism. That was about as bad as a government could be.
Perspective.
Things I never heard about in my public education in the U.S.A.
- The french revolution
- Cromwell
- The science and arts in the Ottoman Empire.
- The Cause of the Russian Revolution
- The Cause of the fall of China and Rise of "RED" China.
- Why we were in Vietnam
- Why we were in North Korea
- Why we went to fight in WWI
- Why we were so slow to go to fight in WWII
- Why we ended up fighting with Japan (that is still a little unclear, but they seem to have fired the first shot--Pearl Harbor and all)
- Who was on the land that was given to the Jews after WWII to become Israel
- The colonialization of Africa, India, South America, Australia.
- Local things like--tribal schools, reservations, small pox infected blankets,
What do we really know. What has history taught us.
We know that whoever is in power controls history. We know that teaching people a story that makes those in power out to be all good and making those that were destroyed, overthrown, misused all bad or in some way inferior makes us feel we are on the side of winners. We identify with the powerful. We are loyal. We are patriotic.
I have talked to people that live in this country and that have their own family history which does not jibe with the current story of history. People that remember their grandmother telling them of punishment for speaking the language of her family while living at an Indian school. People that remember when Korea was one country, or that are here as Zorastrians and are afraid of the christians in their neighborhood because religious freedom only goes so far. People that have heard stories of slavery and are still seeing the effects of being treated as if they are not part of this country. People that came here recently from another country and found that we are not really that free, that equal--that the land of opportunity is more bumper sticker than truth.
Public schools were created at the beginning of the industrial age to help educate and indoctrinate a rural and uneducated group of people that had been living on farms and ranches and otherwise "off the land" so that they would make good workers in their factories. The factories needed people with the ability read and do calculations, to follow directions and submit to authority. Public schools were made, not for the good of the common man, but for the good of the rich and their newest money making enterprises. The children of the moneyed had always had access to education. They didn't learn to sing patriotic songs and color turkeys. They recieved a "classic education" which we would now equate to an expensive prep school.
History, if it is to keep us from repeating it biggest mistakes, must be a truer history. It must include the history of those places we, in the nation, have ignored. It must tell the story of the oppressed as well as the glory stories of the oppressors. We must all seek out a more complete, more global, story if we are to avoid the mistakes that have already been made repeatedly.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Snobbery and Assumptions
I passed the video with the large, scruffy-looking man talking about racism for several days without opening it. It had "gone viral" according to the comment by the posting. I still skipped it until my own insomnia made me look.
It was a selfie-video from a pickup truck. His accent was thickly southern, self-proclaimed "redneck" and admitted racist. That last part was not "I'm a white supremacist and proud of it" It was more of an admission of self awareness. He spoke at length about the USA, its past, its dominant culture, the effects of that on our country--he called us a white supremacist nation. I was a little horrified. Not that he said it while looking like he might just pull down a white pillowcase with eye holes when he finished speaking (my original assumption when I saw the post) but because he was so correct.
Those of us that consider ourselves well-educated, well-spoken, above the hoi polloi, frequently dismiss that earthy majority as if having certain accents, being part of the more "common" culture in some areas of the country makes them incapable of intelligence, of self-awareness, of goodness.
Why would that be true? I am offended by women in my age group that still make comments about how scary it is to be alone in a hallway at work with someone that works in housekeeping because they are a male of another race or act as if they are in some way at the mercy of poor people in general so never drive to anything that takes them through neighborhoods that are "not like mine". I suspect my own neighborhood would qualify as one of those, though it is so far out in the sticks that they are more likely to have trouble with the snakes and coyotes than "those people". A lot of my neighbors or their children look like that "good ole boy" in the video. I'm not friendly so long talks and discovery of unmined wisdoms and cognitive gold has not happened. I have not assumed they were RACISTS as I have seen no evidence of that. I always assume some lowercase racism with everyone. We--humans in general--are so prone to the "us vs them" mentality that it is just part of the background noise of life.
So my shock was not so much the idea that our nation, our melting pot nation that started with colonialism and the eradication of the native cultures of the land and built using the slave labor of people that were treated like the natural resources of another continent that colonialism ravaged, was as racist in its own assumptions as the old apartheid system in South Africa. (we all decried that as wrong--so much easier to identify wrong when it is them than when it is us). My shock was that I had so rapidly dismissed the value of anything that man could say due to his appearance. And yes, I almost turned it off again when he sounded so much like Billy Bob in Slingblade, (a movie I love, by the way)
I do not consider myself a snob. I try not to make negative assumptions about people based on their appearance or their specific culture. I try to keep an open mind. If I didn't try so hard, with so much self-examination of my own motives, I might still be passing over that video.
What else have I missed due to my own snobbery and assumptions?
It was a selfie-video from a pickup truck. His accent was thickly southern, self-proclaimed "redneck" and admitted racist. That last part was not "I'm a white supremacist and proud of it" It was more of an admission of self awareness. He spoke at length about the USA, its past, its dominant culture, the effects of that on our country--he called us a white supremacist nation. I was a little horrified. Not that he said it while looking like he might just pull down a white pillowcase with eye holes when he finished speaking (my original assumption when I saw the post) but because he was so correct.
Those of us that consider ourselves well-educated, well-spoken, above the hoi polloi, frequently dismiss that earthy majority as if having certain accents, being part of the more "common" culture in some areas of the country makes them incapable of intelligence, of self-awareness, of goodness.
Why would that be true? I am offended by women in my age group that still make comments about how scary it is to be alone in a hallway at work with someone that works in housekeeping because they are a male of another race or act as if they are in some way at the mercy of poor people in general so never drive to anything that takes them through neighborhoods that are "not like mine". I suspect my own neighborhood would qualify as one of those, though it is so far out in the sticks that they are more likely to have trouble with the snakes and coyotes than "those people". A lot of my neighbors or their children look like that "good ole boy" in the video. I'm not friendly so long talks and discovery of unmined wisdoms and cognitive gold has not happened. I have not assumed they were RACISTS as I have seen no evidence of that. I always assume some lowercase racism with everyone. We--humans in general--are so prone to the "us vs them" mentality that it is just part of the background noise of life.
So my shock was not so much the idea that our nation, our melting pot nation that started with colonialism and the eradication of the native cultures of the land and built using the slave labor of people that were treated like the natural resources of another continent that colonialism ravaged, was as racist in its own assumptions as the old apartheid system in South Africa. (we all decried that as wrong--so much easier to identify wrong when it is them than when it is us). My shock was that I had so rapidly dismissed the value of anything that man could say due to his appearance. And yes, I almost turned it off again when he sounded so much like Billy Bob in Slingblade, (a movie I love, by the way)
I do not consider myself a snob. I try not to make negative assumptions about people based on their appearance or their specific culture. I try to keep an open mind. If I didn't try so hard, with so much self-examination of my own motives, I might still be passing over that video.
What else have I missed due to my own snobbery and assumptions?
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
surprising and remarkable!
I embarrassed a new co-worker and had to examine my own meaning last week when I pronounced the newly hired person "surprising and remarkable" in front of the boss.
The new woman stammered. The boss gave me the stink-eye and asked "exactly what does that mean"
I had no idea, but that didn't make it less true.
SO at 0100 this morning, I woke up from a cat attack (some cats are more wild than others and can't seem to control that urge to stalk and kill) and then couldn't turn off my brain. I pondered and questioned and thought. I ruminated and worried.
This is what I came up with.
Surprised is like startled or shocked, but generally pleasant, like an unexpected gift or a birthday party in which you actually have fun or a day off all to yourself when it is beautiful outside and you have nothing better to do than wander about aimlessly.
Remarkable is, well, able to be remarked about.
I think that neither adjective meant much when I was 8 years old. I was not jaded. I had not seen it all. chocolate ice cream, a movie with fairies, a box of crayons would all be describable by "Surprising" and "remarkable".
In my teens, I could add things I didn't understand, like sexual innuendos and Rock and Roll and gossip.
In college, both were used when the conversation turned to ideas, plans, things never thought of before. Experiences that had never been experienced before.
By my twenties, work was more time consuming, life more routine. Those words could probably not be used often, and twenty-somethings that used them would have been highly suspect. (Pod people? body double? what is up with her).
After a while, life was rather mundane, conversation was only intimate with very close friends and when you know someone very well, surprising is not as common. Remarkable is frequently replaced with "have you seen my socks?" Responsibilities and day to day activities consume conversation and that reallly is life.
At work it is worse. Weather as a conversation topic is usually safe. What you and your family (substitute friends, loved ones, pet, club, etc) did last pm after work or on the weekend is always fair game to share with a coworker. (Leave off arrests, affairs, illegal substances and acts of vandalism.) If you are a good listener, those individuals that always want to vent will find you and tell you everything. E--VERY-Thing! Frequently, they forget they already told you that and will come around again and tell you-- again. The good thing is they don't really want interruptions. If you nod or say "uhhuh" or "right" periodically, they don't even insist you stop doing your work.
That is neither surprising or remarkable.
So what made this new, thirty-something employee both?
She thought before she spoke. What she said was honest even if it wasn't in agreement with what other people were saying. She was aware of current events and was not just spouting her parents' opinions, she could explain her opinion and give cogent reasons for having it. She was not what I refer to in my own head, as the "humiliatingly unhumble new expert". They come in with the attitude that they already know everything and are here to fix all the problems before they have had time to even know what the problems might be. She was also not the newbie that expected everyone to not expect anything out of her for 6 months.
She was open about what she knew and what she didn't know. She did not try to "yes-man" the old-timers.
She was unapologetically herself.
I really hope she stays around a while.
The new woman stammered. The boss gave me the stink-eye and asked "exactly what does that mean"
I had no idea, but that didn't make it less true.
SO at 0100 this morning, I woke up from a cat attack (some cats are more wild than others and can't seem to control that urge to stalk and kill) and then couldn't turn off my brain. I pondered and questioned and thought. I ruminated and worried.
This is what I came up with.
Surprised is like startled or shocked, but generally pleasant, like an unexpected gift or a birthday party in which you actually have fun or a day off all to yourself when it is beautiful outside and you have nothing better to do than wander about aimlessly.
Remarkable is, well, able to be remarked about.
I think that neither adjective meant much when I was 8 years old. I was not jaded. I had not seen it all. chocolate ice cream, a movie with fairies, a box of crayons would all be describable by "Surprising" and "remarkable".
In my teens, I could add things I didn't understand, like sexual innuendos and Rock and Roll and gossip.
In college, both were used when the conversation turned to ideas, plans, things never thought of before. Experiences that had never been experienced before.
By my twenties, work was more time consuming, life more routine. Those words could probably not be used often, and twenty-somethings that used them would have been highly suspect. (Pod people? body double? what is up with her).
After a while, life was rather mundane, conversation was only intimate with very close friends and when you know someone very well, surprising is not as common. Remarkable is frequently replaced with "have you seen my socks?" Responsibilities and day to day activities consume conversation and that reallly is life.
At work it is worse. Weather as a conversation topic is usually safe. What you and your family (substitute friends, loved ones, pet, club, etc) did last pm after work or on the weekend is always fair game to share with a coworker. (Leave off arrests, affairs, illegal substances and acts of vandalism.) If you are a good listener, those individuals that always want to vent will find you and tell you everything. E--VERY-Thing! Frequently, they forget they already told you that and will come around again and tell you-- again. The good thing is they don't really want interruptions. If you nod or say "uhhuh" or "right" periodically, they don't even insist you stop doing your work.
That is neither surprising or remarkable.
So what made this new, thirty-something employee both?
She thought before she spoke. What she said was honest even if it wasn't in agreement with what other people were saying. She was aware of current events and was not just spouting her parents' opinions, she could explain her opinion and give cogent reasons for having it. She was not what I refer to in my own head, as the "humiliatingly unhumble new expert". They come in with the attitude that they already know everything and are here to fix all the problems before they have had time to even know what the problems might be. She was also not the newbie that expected everyone to not expect anything out of her for 6 months.
She was open about what she knew and what she didn't know. She did not try to "yes-man" the old-timers.
She was unapologetically herself.
I really hope she stays around a while.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Profiteering
This is from Wikipedia--which we all know is not the most accurate source of information all the time, but makes a great jumping-off spot.
(Capitalism is an economic system and a mode of production in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor and, in many models, competitive markets.[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.[4]
The degree of competition, role of intervention and regulation, and scope of state ownership varies across different models of capitalism.[5] Economists, political economists, and historians have taken different perspectives in their analysis of capitalism and recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire capitalism, welfare capitalism, crony capitalism and state capitalism; each highlighting varying degrees of dependency on markets, public ownership, and inclusion of social policies. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy. Many states have what are termed capitalist mixed economies, referring to a mix between planned and market-driven elements.[6] Capitalism has existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places, and cultures.[7] Following the demise of feudalism, capitalism became the dominant economic system in the Western world.)
I have always been in favor of Capitalism! (my parents were for it, scared of being bombed by the USSR or RED China and made sure we got that our way was the only good way) Well, except for that short period in college when I had the strange little sociology grad. student teaching freshman intro to soc. He was weird, so he didn't make me change, but he did a good job of adding some questions to my mind. So I then was almost sent to a camp for deprogramming for asking those questions during the following summer--"what if everyone got to choose their own job according to what they were good at and and what they wanted to do, but we all made the same amount of money?" The horrified answer was "dammit, then we'd be commies"
I dropped that. Went on with my life constantly trying to find a job I liked and that paid enough to live on(in my world, it was never the same job, sometimes it wasn't even the same two jobs), all the time watching what TV showed as middle class existence and my own world which was more of a BET series or maybe an HBO look at the struggles of a down and out family. That was a time in which just getting by was all consuming. The world went through a lot of changes, and all I noticed was I still couldn't keep all the bills current AND get my kids the clothes they thought were necessary to compete with their classmates. The bills won and the kids still complain about that.
So what does any of this have to do with profiteering.
EVERYTHING!
Capitalism is all about making a profit. What no one tells the students in class learning about it, is that most of us are not in the group that receives the profits. Most of us are under the expense column. We are skilled labor or unskilled labor. We are in marketing or accounting. We are in research and development. We are in the technology budget.
The profits go to the stockholders.
So, while capitalism runs our nations, most of us are not stockholders, we are expenses to be controlled.
That explains why, despite making a profit, the raising of the minimum wage is fought tooth and nail and giving better benefits is not seen as helping the company. It is all about how much of the money obtained from sales goes back to the stockholders.
Amazingly, stockholders didn't have to do any work, they just had to buy stock. And if all those expenses perform well and at a low enough cost, the profits go up. And the people that created that profit, profit not at all.
Right now, we have huge income inequality and a huge fight to keep that inequality as it is. The same thoughts that made my own parents teach me the evils of anything but capitalism are still using the same methods---only the names are changed because---names and borderlines change.
Currently in the news: We are having a major fight on the political, economic and street fronts for/against raising the minimum wage. If all the jobs had increased evenly, by percent, the current minimum wage would be $21.00/hour. (I used my own wage, but am in a field with a high demand right now. If I had used the increase in CEO pay, they would need to be $75.00/hour. The $15.00 currently being suggested is based on what is should be by cost of living/inflation increases. And yet there are people making less than that claiming it is too much. (now who needs deprogramming?)
We have people in healthcare griping about Obama care, which would get rid of all that unpaid healthcare that has been wrecking havoc on hospitals due to loss of payments by people without insurance. So, who is actually complaining and why: well, there is more government over site and pay is going to be more standardized. Selling patient's drugs and procedures and hospital stays to increase profits will be identified and stopped. A dying patient does not need a $200,000 surgery unless that surgery can save them, yet patients with stage 5 lung Cancer have had major heart surgery, only to die without every making it home. That is what oversight is about. People that are blind from glaucoma will not profit from cataract surgery and annual colonoscopies for diverticulosis does not help the patient, they just bring in money. The people talking bad about Obama care are insurance companies (more oversight and thus fewer of those ridiculous clauses they don't pay on) pharmaceutical companies (more oversight of those high cost meds that are no better than their cheaper cousins) physician Lobby groups (sooooo powerful, there is a reason that physicians make more money than all other Doctorate prepared people)
In the news was standardized test companies pouring money into lobbying for their company and "for profit" jails/prisons with quotas that the states/cities have to reach to keep their contracts (how is more people in the prison system really good?) there is a proliferation of career and internet colleges with tuition higher than the highest Ivy League school that promises to make everyone, no matter what their difficulties a successful person. For Profit career colleges have been doing this for thirty years but when that degree cost so much that you owe more than you can ever make per year, that is more scam than education. (brings to mind my fathers "smart pill" joke).
We have lawmakers making laws that determine what is science, using greed and wishful thinking as their conscience. We have the ability to clean up our environment but while it is do-able, it will take profits from a giant industry--petroleum. Rather than using this time to find other energy sources and becoming the front line in those, they have focused on keeping their own power just as it is and damn progress and the environment and the future of the planet.
We have a War on Drugs, and there is so much under the table money being passed around to keep that war going that it makes prohibition look like a minor error in law making. Legalize them. Pull the teeth of the criminal enterprises and tax the addicts and recreational users, and stop filling the pockets of the stockholders of the For Profit Prisons and Jails. And Get those drug users and dealers with no violent behavior back out of those prisons. Those three strikes for drug crimes are lives that don't have to be lost.
And the big bear--the WAR MACHINE. Weapons manufacturers, military suppliers, and that includes all those "meals-ready-to-eat" makers and uniform factories and combat boots and hanger's on industries that profit most highly when there are people being killed in the name of a country and its wants. Any company that can only profit during a time of war is not a successful company. If they can't make a profit without someone dying, they should quit.
Perhaps the worst of the profiteers are our lawmakers. The old "fox in the hen house" comes to mind. When the ethics of those determining the fate of our country is up for sale to the biggest SUPERPAC, the whole checks and balances system is thrown into a tailspin. When the people being voted in no longer fight for those people, but rather fight for the money that backed them, only the profiteers win.
There is nothing wrong with making a profit. If I sell what I make for the cost of the materials I used to make the thing, I will starve. A profit is not unfair. Profiteering is beyond that, it is when we change the system, use the emergencies, use the fears, create a system in which the only important thing is the profit.
We need our ethics back.
(Capitalism is an economic system and a mode of production in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor and, in many models, competitive markets.[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.[4]
The degree of competition, role of intervention and regulation, and scope of state ownership varies across different models of capitalism.[5] Economists, political economists, and historians have taken different perspectives in their analysis of capitalism and recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire capitalism, welfare capitalism, crony capitalism and state capitalism; each highlighting varying degrees of dependency on markets, public ownership, and inclusion of social policies. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy. Many states have what are termed capitalist mixed economies, referring to a mix between planned and market-driven elements.[6] Capitalism has existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places, and cultures.[7] Following the demise of feudalism, capitalism became the dominant economic system in the Western world.)
I have always been in favor of Capitalism! (my parents were for it, scared of being bombed by the USSR or RED China and made sure we got that our way was the only good way) Well, except for that short period in college when I had the strange little sociology grad. student teaching freshman intro to soc. He was weird, so he didn't make me change, but he did a good job of adding some questions to my mind. So I then was almost sent to a camp for deprogramming for asking those questions during the following summer--"what if everyone got to choose their own job according to what they were good at and and what they wanted to do, but we all made the same amount of money?" The horrified answer was "dammit, then we'd be commies"
I dropped that. Went on with my life constantly trying to find a job I liked and that paid enough to live on(in my world, it was never the same job, sometimes it wasn't even the same two jobs), all the time watching what TV showed as middle class existence and my own world which was more of a BET series or maybe an HBO look at the struggles of a down and out family. That was a time in which just getting by was all consuming. The world went through a lot of changes, and all I noticed was I still couldn't keep all the bills current AND get my kids the clothes they thought were necessary to compete with their classmates. The bills won and the kids still complain about that.
So what does any of this have to do with profiteering.
EVERYTHING!
Capitalism is all about making a profit. What no one tells the students in class learning about it, is that most of us are not in the group that receives the profits. Most of us are under the expense column. We are skilled labor or unskilled labor. We are in marketing or accounting. We are in research and development. We are in the technology budget.
The profits go to the stockholders.
So, while capitalism runs our nations, most of us are not stockholders, we are expenses to be controlled.
That explains why, despite making a profit, the raising of the minimum wage is fought tooth and nail and giving better benefits is not seen as helping the company. It is all about how much of the money obtained from sales goes back to the stockholders.
Amazingly, stockholders didn't have to do any work, they just had to buy stock. And if all those expenses perform well and at a low enough cost, the profits go up. And the people that created that profit, profit not at all.
Right now, we have huge income inequality and a huge fight to keep that inequality as it is. The same thoughts that made my own parents teach me the evils of anything but capitalism are still using the same methods---only the names are changed because---names and borderlines change.
Currently in the news: We are having a major fight on the political, economic and street fronts for/against raising the minimum wage. If all the jobs had increased evenly, by percent, the current minimum wage would be $21.00/hour. (I used my own wage, but am in a field with a high demand right now. If I had used the increase in CEO pay, they would need to be $75.00/hour. The $15.00 currently being suggested is based on what is should be by cost of living/inflation increases. And yet there are people making less than that claiming it is too much. (now who needs deprogramming?)
We have people in healthcare griping about Obama care, which would get rid of all that unpaid healthcare that has been wrecking havoc on hospitals due to loss of payments by people without insurance. So, who is actually complaining and why: well, there is more government over site and pay is going to be more standardized. Selling patient's drugs and procedures and hospital stays to increase profits will be identified and stopped. A dying patient does not need a $200,000 surgery unless that surgery can save them, yet patients with stage 5 lung Cancer have had major heart surgery, only to die without every making it home. That is what oversight is about. People that are blind from glaucoma will not profit from cataract surgery and annual colonoscopies for diverticulosis does not help the patient, they just bring in money. The people talking bad about Obama care are insurance companies (more oversight and thus fewer of those ridiculous clauses they don't pay on) pharmaceutical companies (more oversight of those high cost meds that are no better than their cheaper cousins) physician Lobby groups (sooooo powerful, there is a reason that physicians make more money than all other Doctorate prepared people)
In the news was standardized test companies pouring money into lobbying for their company and "for profit" jails/prisons with quotas that the states/cities have to reach to keep their contracts (how is more people in the prison system really good?) there is a proliferation of career and internet colleges with tuition higher than the highest Ivy League school that promises to make everyone, no matter what their difficulties a successful person. For Profit career colleges have been doing this for thirty years but when that degree cost so much that you owe more than you can ever make per year, that is more scam than education. (brings to mind my fathers "smart pill" joke).
We have lawmakers making laws that determine what is science, using greed and wishful thinking as their conscience. We have the ability to clean up our environment but while it is do-able, it will take profits from a giant industry--petroleum. Rather than using this time to find other energy sources and becoming the front line in those, they have focused on keeping their own power just as it is and damn progress and the environment and the future of the planet.
We have a War on Drugs, and there is so much under the table money being passed around to keep that war going that it makes prohibition look like a minor error in law making. Legalize them. Pull the teeth of the criminal enterprises and tax the addicts and recreational users, and stop filling the pockets of the stockholders of the For Profit Prisons and Jails. And Get those drug users and dealers with no violent behavior back out of those prisons. Those three strikes for drug crimes are lives that don't have to be lost.
And the big bear--the WAR MACHINE. Weapons manufacturers, military suppliers, and that includes all those "meals-ready-to-eat" makers and uniform factories and combat boots and hanger's on industries that profit most highly when there are people being killed in the name of a country and its wants. Any company that can only profit during a time of war is not a successful company. If they can't make a profit without someone dying, they should quit.
Perhaps the worst of the profiteers are our lawmakers. The old "fox in the hen house" comes to mind. When the ethics of those determining the fate of our country is up for sale to the biggest SUPERPAC, the whole checks and balances system is thrown into a tailspin. When the people being voted in no longer fight for those people, but rather fight for the money that backed them, only the profiteers win.
There is nothing wrong with making a profit. If I sell what I make for the cost of the materials I used to make the thing, I will starve. A profit is not unfair. Profiteering is beyond that, it is when we change the system, use the emergencies, use the fears, create a system in which the only important thing is the profit.
We need our ethics back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Make love not war--a counterculture slogan from the 1960's--very hippy-dippy, very anti-establishment, very John Lennon. Images of graf...
-
We are currently seeing lots of change, lots of manmade change, change that is affecting the weather, the average temperature, the percent...